Week 1. Introduction, Overview, and Early History (Week of September 25)

Lewin, K. (1952). Group decision and social change. In G.E. Swanson, T.M. Newcomb, & E.L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in social psychology (pp. 459-473). Holt.

This paper examines experiments on group decision and addresses the importance of integrating cultural anthropology, psychology, and sociology into one social science.

I. Social Channels and Social Perception

-Involves the motivation to action and the effect of setting on an individual’s willingness to change vs. maintaining certain standards, as well as the position of the group in the total social field.

Study on Food habits: Channels, Gates, and Gatekeepers

Comparison of different ethnic and economic groups in a mid-western town/ attempting to link changing food habits in line with war needs/ thus, the study attempts to provide some social change on a small scale – dinner tables in families.

Channels though which food reaches the family table – the housewife plays some role in food habits, the food is likely to be eaten by someone in the family since little is thrown away, and to change food habits, change the channel by which it reaches the table.

The conflict in acquiring food is assessed on the force and opposing force on the food, specifically the buying situation which can be seen as a conflict situation. For example, a food may be attractive and liked by the family, but it is overly expensive and not essential for survival. Thus, food is bought if the total force toward buying becomes greater than opposing forces (price, length of preparation, unappealing taste, etc.). Across cultures, the middle socioeconomic group contains the highest conflict ratings.

Once food is bought, however, can change force direction based on the gate (in this case, the person buying the food, say the housewife). True for businesses, universities, etc. Try hard not to admit weak candidates, but once people pass through the gate and gate keeper, try everything in their power to make sure everyone succeeds. Changes of the whole group depend on the psychology of the gatekeeper.

Planning, Fact-Finding, and Execution

Planning starts with a general idea and then results in a strategy for a) an overall plan and b) a first step of action.

The next task is how to execute the first step, which involves fact finding involving four functions:

1) evaluate the action according to if what has been achieved is above or below expectation

2) correctly plans the next step

3) modifies overall plan

4) gives planners a chance to learn and gain general insight regarding strength and weakness of action

Each step of the plan consists of such an array of steps including a circle of planning, action, and fact finding about certain potential results of action.

If we do not have criteria for evaluation, there is nothing to prevent wrong conclusions and the encouragement of wrong work habits, especially in areas of social management and self-management of groups.

Group Decision depends on:

1) how the group views the situation and therefore can be influenced by a change in this perception

2) a correct perception of the result of social action for the decision necessary to initiate the next step

Group Decisions

Experiment in changing food decisions for 6 Red Cross Groups – objective was to increase the use of beef hearts, kidneys, and sweetbreads. Only 45 minutes available to induce such a decision.

In three groups, lectures were given which linked the problem of nutrition to the war effort, the value of minerals in the three meats. Health and economic aspects were stressed. Hints on how to prepare these ‘delicious dishes’ and success among HER own family were stressed as well.

In the other three groups, Mr. Alex Bavelas developed the procedure of group decision. Addressed the same concerns in the lectures, except not until after the groups themselves discussed remedies on how to remove the obstacles in getting their own families to incorporate hearts, kidneys, and sweetbreads into their own meals.

Before the lecture and group meeting, a consensus was taken on how many women served these foods in the past and then taken again at the end to see which ones would incorporate these meals within the next week.

In a follow-up study, it was noted that:

3% of the women who heard the lectures served the meats never served before

32% of the women after group decision served the meats never served before

Such findings lead to the following criteria for group decisions:

1) degree of involvement

2) motivation and decision

3) individual vs. group

4) expectation – only after group discussion did the discussion leader mention that an inquiry would be later made about who incorporated the meals

5) leader personality

More experiments were conducted in an attempt to figure out which these criteria are more critical than the others:

1) Lecture vs. Group Decision

a. 6 groups of housewives with 6-9 members; using more milk at home; again lecture vs. group decision; check-ups 2 and 4 weeks later

b. at both 2 and 4 weeks, housewives who were in the group discussion reported an increase in the consumption of milk

c. this showed that it was not the personality or accomplished position of the lecturer or group leader in exp 1, not due to the type of food, not only after one week in exp 1, but relevant for 2 and 4 weeks, and also both groups did not know they were going to be asked about milk incorporation after 4 weeks.

2) Individual instruction vs. Group decision – Iowa city mothers given advice on how to feed babies after giving birth to their first children

Individual instruction vs. Group

After 2 and 4 weeks, people assessed on their incorporation of cod liver oil and orange juice, more people in groups than individual instruction complied with the advice. After 4 weeks, 100% used orange juice after group instruction.

Individual instruction puts more pressure on the person

No interaction among mothers before and after, thus no affiliation

Giving milk and orange juice to babies higher possibility than cod liver oil and kidneys/beef hearts in exp 1 – resistance to change of gatekeeper to disliked food, then less likely to pass on to group

3) Quasi-stationary Social Equilibria and the Problem of Permanent Change

a. Objective of change – involves a social process and a multitude of factors involved in one particular case; combination of educational and organizational measures

b. Conditions of a stable quasi-stationary equilibrium – strength of forces to lower standard of equilibrium should be equal to those that increase the standard of equilibrium; it is possible to change the strength of opposing forces without changing the level of social conduct

4) 2 basic methods to change levels of conduct

a. adding forces in the desired direction or by diminishing opposing forces; avoids high pressure methods and sensitive to resistance to change

5) Social habits and group standards

a. To break social habits, introduce a force to overcome inner resistance

6) Individual procedures and Group Procedures of Changing Social Conduct

a. If resistance to change depends on how the group values the individual, such a resistance to change would diminish if one diminishes the value strength of the group standard by the individual as having social value. If the group standard is changed, then the resistance due to the relation between individual and group standard is eliminated.

Summary

In order to make group change last: 1) unfreeze the present level of group belief 2) move group level to a new level 3) freeze group belief on new level.

Group decision is related to social channels, gates, and gatekeepers; to the problem of social perception and planning; and to the relation between motivation and action, and between the individual and the group. Experiments were reported where certain methods of group decision are preferred to lecturing and individual treatment in order to change social conduct. Group decision potentially related to quasi-stationary equilibria relating to the balance of forces, specifically to social habits and resistance to change, as well as to the problems of unfreezing, changing, and freezing social levels.

McGuire, W.J. (1973). The yin and yang of progress in social psychology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26, 446-456.

· Discusses the main research paradigm that had developed in social psychology, and a new emerging one that attempted to address some flaws in the old one

· Mainstream paradigm

· Constructs hypotheses from current theories and frameworks

· Manipulates experimental variables in a laboratory setting

· Emerging paradigm

· Constructs hypotheses relevant to social problems

· Emphasis on fieldwork and correlational data from natural settings

· McGuire argues that the emerging paradigm does not address the problems with the current one that it claims to deal with

· Hypothesis formation and testing

· For McGuire, the problem with the current paradigm stems from the fact that researchers choose obvious hypotheses, and then try to devise experiments that will corroborate their hypotheses, rather than using the data to reform them

· The fieldwork approach does not alleviate this problem, it just changes the nature of the work from “stage-managing” experiments to finding the right place in the natural world that will confirm a given hypothesis

· The problem isn’t with the experimental methodology, though fieldwork and socially relevant research is useful – the problem is with theory and hypothesis formation

· Suggests emphasizing the hypothesis formation portion of research in methodology courses

· Too much emphasis on linear models (“a causes b”) – “students…must be encouraged to think big, or rather to think complexly, with conceptual models that involve parallel processing, nets of causally interrelated factors, feedback loops, bidirectional causation, etc.

· Keep one eye on the real world rather than just experimental data in driving hypotheses

· Increase the use of longitudinal studies

McCord, J. (1978). A thirty year follow-up of treatment effects. American Psychologist, 33, 284-289.

This article examines the effects of an experimental treatment program conducted by Richard Cabot Clark in 1935 known as the Cambridge-Somerville Youth Study.

Original Methods

Several hundred boys from eastern Massachusetts were chosen and placed into two groups: control and treatment. All subjects were chosen based on recommendations of ‘difficult’ and ‘average’ youngsters chosen from welfare agencies, churches, and policemen. Delinquency scores were given to them following interviews by social workers, then paired with similar subjects who had similar ages, delinquency-prone histories, family backgrounds, and home environments. Randomly placed into control or treatment group.

Treatment began in 1939, where the median age of subjects was 10.5 years (range 5-13). Counselors met with subjects in the treatment group on average twice a month. Some focused on family problems, academic subjects, and/or medical or psychiatric attention. Some were sent to community programs or YMCA programs. The control group only provided information about themselves. 253 had been in the treatment program and 253 of their ‘matched mates’ had been in the control group.

Current Methods

In 1975 and 1976, the 506 members were contacted for follow-up study.

Due to death and unreturned questionnaires, only 113 questionnaires from the treatment group and 122 from the control group were used to make these longitudinal comparisons. Court convictions not juvenile records were used to assess criminal behavior.

For those in the treatment group, 119 committed minor crimes as adults and 49 committed serious crimes (ranging from assault to rape to attempted homicide). For those in the control group 126 men had committed minor crimes, 42 serious crimes. 29 from the treatment group and 25 from control group committed serious crimes after the age of 25. Overall, there were no significant differences between the treatment and control groups for a) the number of serious crimes committed, b) the age when a first crime was committed, c) the age when committing a first serious crime, and d) age after which no serious crime was committed. Delinquency scores did not aid in predicted the crime rate of individuals in either group, but a high proportion of criminals from the treatment group committed more than one crime than criminals in the control group (78% to 67%, respectively).

Differences/Similarities between each group:

Health: no difference for alcoholism from the records of treatment centers and mental hospitals, but from this given health questionnaire, 17 % in treatment group were alcoholic in comparison to 7% of control group;

21% of treatment had mental disorder, harder diagnoses (71% schizophrenic) from this group, vs. 67% of control group for personality disorder.

Home Life:

68% married from control, 61% of treatment; no significant differences between divorces, re-marriages, number of children, etc.

Equal % of unskilled workers in each group, but there were 43% toward the end of the socioeconomic scale for the control group and only 29% for the high end of the treatment group. Treatment groups less likely to report that their work was satisfying. Did not differ across groups for how they spent their leisure time.

Beliefs and Attitudes

Did not differ in how they thought their lives would turn out and their ability to plan ahead. No difference between their thoughts on authoritarianism, politics, or the best periods of their lives.

Evaluation of the program

2/3 claimed the program had been helpful to them in keeping them away from a life of crime.

Conclusions

Though 2/3 claimed it helped, the objective measures discussed here provided little evidence that the Youth Study improved the lives of the treatment group.

1/15 comparisons for criminal behavior were significant

4/15 comparisons for health favored the control group

2/13 comparisons for family, work, and leisure time favored the control group

14/14 comparisons about beliefs and attitudes failed to indicate any differences between groups

Treatment actually produced negative side effects:

1) more likely to commit a second crime

2) more likely to evidence signs of alcoholism

3) more likely to manifest signs of serious mental illness

4) of those who died, more likely to die younger

5) more members reported having stress related disease

6) more likely to have occupations with lower prestige

7) tended to report work as not satisfying

Interpretations:

Interactions with adults whose values were different than those of the family potentially created internal conflict that later manifested in disease/dissatisfaction.

Agency interaction may create a dependency on outside assistance, may experience resentment when help is not available.

May have processed the project itself as the ‘treatment’ group requiring help, though this may not have been true. As a result, perhaps went through life thinking something was wrong with them.

Ross, L., & Nisbett, R.E. (1991). The person and the situation, Chapters 1 and 2 (pp. 1-58).

McGraw-Hill.

Chapter 1: Introduction

· General point is that lay-psychology serves us well in most situations but is wholly wrong. Particularly because individuals imply too much reliance on personal factors (i.e., disposition) in predicting behavior. Information regarding specifics of the situation are most important and useful.

· Such ‘dispositionism’ is widespread in our own culture and we, scientists and laypeople alike, find support for it in our everyday interactions.

· The highest found correlation, or “Predictability Ceiling” between measured individual differences on a single trait and behavior in novel situations is .3.

· This inflated belief of the importance of personality traits (vs. situational factors) is the Fundamental Attribution Error

· Counterintuitively, apparently strong situational manipulations that are intended to have positive outcomes more often than not have negative effects (ex. Sommerville delinquency study.)

- Situationism started with Lewin who believed that behavior is a function of the person and the situation – which he coined ‘life space’ to describe the individual and the individual’s representation of the environment. His main point was thatsocial context created potent forces producing and constraining behavior.

· Lewin’s channel, gate, and gatekeeper described in the outline for Lewin’s paper prevent one possible explanation for why the Sommerville study didn’t work; specifically, seemingly big interventions that provide no effective channel in the form of situational pressures or no behaviorally effective outlet channel in the form of clear intentions or plans, will generally produce disappointingly effects.

· Likewise, small situational factors that operate on important input or output channels will often produce large effects.

· The authors accept that social psychology will never reach the point of predicting how any given individual (even one who is well known to us) is going to behave in a novel situation; people do, however, make correct predictions on the basis of erroneous beliefs and defective prediction strategies.

· TRIPOD of social psychology (mainly regards prediction):

+Construal: the manner in which the person understands the situation as a

whole

]

*main difference between early social psych and behaviorists was

that the behaviorists didn’t want to address the issue of

personal construal

*”[social psych’s] most astute practitioners always understood that

it is the situation as construed by the subjects that is the true

stimulus” – which should influence the factors we attend to

as researchers.

*After Lewin, Asch was the 2nd biggest advocate of construal;

Piaget and Bartlett introduced concept of schema

*Laypeople consistently underestimate the role of construal in

determining behavior – three errors: failure to recognize the

degree to which perception is the result of active

interpretation rather than passive reception of reality;

failure to appreciate the variability of construal (esp. in

others, or for future behavior); failure of causality, where

behavior is seen as dispositional rather than based on

subjective construal

+Tension systems

*psyches and collectives (groups of all sizes) must be understood

as systems in tension

*no simple 1to1 law for stimuli and responses, as both are

embedded in a dynamic context

*analysis of restraining factors associated with stimulus

introduction can be as important as analysis of the stimulus

itself; Kohler’s ‘quasi-stationary equilibrium’

*can alter tension by adding or increasing impelling forces, or

eliminating restraining forces for a particular change

*Festinger – studied individual attitudes are in tension with the

individuals in their groups – tension system notions

people do not like the state of being in disagreement with

their group members

groups are in tension from requirements to uniformity and

the forces operating on individuals to stray from the group

standard

when in disagreement one will either attempt to change

others minds; move their own attitude to match others, or

reject others from the group

when all three resolutions are impossible (or difficult) one

experiences cognitive dissonance (this is the original

definition, later expanded) – which is often resolved in

favor of the group’s view – (ex. Groupthink)

tension within an individual = DISSONANCE

when dissonance is present, people will shift their beliefs

line with their behavior

Prediction and Indeterminacy

Prediction by Social Scientists have been pursuing unrealistic goals of prediction; unapologetic because the constraints of the complexity of situations and the people in them just mean there are limits to what is possible and tinkering is necessary to achieve an accurate prediction. Related to ‘butterfly effect’ where small, unanticipated perturbations can have dramatic effects.

Predictions by Laypeople

Lay predictions are more often than not wrong and too confidently made. People sometimes feel obliged to act consistently and as a result, anticipate a predictable social world with consistent and coherent actors. Laypeople’s most fundamental assumptions about personal consistency and predictability are validated by everyday experience even though the basis of this consistency is misinterpreted by the perceiver. Lay psychology, like lay physics, generally gets the job done using dramatically mistaken principles.

Statistical, Pragmatic, and Expectational Effect Sizes

The magnitude of experimental effects should be judged relative to the variability of the measure in question. Effects are big or small relative to the obstacles that stand in the way of getting a particular job done, and relative to the importance of the job. Effects may be big or small relative to what we expected them to be – called expectation criterion because requires changes in one’s previous beliefs (“Bayesian priors”) with respect to some outcome or event.

Chapter 2: The Power of the Situation

Starts with description of British soccer fans attacking and killing Italian fans – used to illustrate that the situation provides elements vastly different from ordinary life situations or from knowledge of the life histories of the participants.

“For few of us can contemplate such instances of collective abandon without feeling that neither we ourselves, nor our friends and neighbors, nor, for that matter, any other decent members of our society would have succumbed to the group influences.

+Situationism

*Lewin’s belief that behavior is a function of the person and the

situation…his particular slant was on the capacity of

situational factors to influence behavior that is normally

seen to be indicative of personal disposition. Main point:

”social context creates potent forces producing or

constraining behavior”

*Social (peer) pressures are the most influential (for overcoming,

or initiating behavior)

*Sherif’s Autokinetic effect – message: “perception is socially

dictated” – even held when subjects came back a year later

*Asch – initially out to disprove Sherif’s claim, using EASY,

unambiguous tasks. Found a large effect of unanimous

groups to influence Sx judgment. Claims that perception

wasn’t altered, but that pressures to uniformity were the

main acting force. Related this to McCarthyism and real

world situations. Were these effects legit or artifacts of laboratory? Milgram (1961) ran a similar study using pitch in a more “real world” paradigm

*Ross, Bierbrauer, Hoffman (1976) – people can almost always

cite reasons for their choice of dissent or conformity. Asch

is different here, as there was no good reason for the wrong

responses of the group. Internal logic is that only crazy

people would make a mistake, and since everyone was

making the mistake, dissent would lead others to find *me*

crazy. Also, dissent could be seen as an insult to the others

in the group. Ross, et. tested this by varying the

consequences for judgments in a particular direction (using

tones, i.e., higher correct pitches pay more). Sx here were

more willing to dissent, because they could attribute their

partner’s action to something

*Bennington studies conducted by Theordore Newcomb show that a social situation can have a HUGE shift in the social and political attitudes of people. Attribution is that the social situation at Bennington was such that various PTUs promised social acceptance and threat of rejection based on political views.

*Sherif’s three camp studies (1953, 1955, 1961) were used to demonstrate that intergroup hostility and negative perceptions aren’t inevitable given diverse social groupings. But that hostility arose from a scarce pool of resources or perceived conflicts of interest. Conflict is reduced when superordinate goals and cooperating behavior are introduced (but not just from informational campaigns)

*even meaningless groupings can provide a basis for

discriminatory behavior (i.e., children allocating money to

groups sorted by art preference)

*Bystander intervention is inhibited by diffusion of

responsibility and the construal of a social situation.

Presence of others prohibits a quick response, which

changes the construal (to make intervention seem

unnecessary) which prohibits response more, and so on..

*we don’t like to ignore the opinions of others, because they can

be useful. So, disagreeing with others produces tension

that we resolve by changing attitudes (theirs or ours) or

deciding that their opinion isn’t useful

*groups are punitive toward deviates because they inhibit

movement (group goals depend on a certain amount of

unanimity)

*Channel factor = “a stimulus or a response pathway that serves to

elicit or sustain behavioral intentions with particular

intensity or stability.” (ex. War bonds bought more when

asked face-to-face)

*minimal compliance – “foot in door” technique. Small acts could

motivate Sx to adopt attitudes consistent with their later

behavior. Or these acts inform subjects about the nature

and degree of their unexamined views.

*Milgram – used to show that people’s leaps from behavior to

disposition is unwarranted, also point out that our lay view

of the study is flawed…the teacher didn’t obey a single

command to deliver a powerful shock, rather the social

situation was subtly, and slowly increased to reach that

point.

Studies cited here and discussed in class:

Darley & Batson (1973) : From Jerusalem to Jericho. study on Seminarian helping behavior and the Good Samaritan parable – doesn’t tell us much about the disposition of the Sx, but that the situation plays a large role.

Darley & Latane (1969) – bystander intervention using smoke

Latane & Rodin (1969) – bystander intervention using a fallen

experimenter

Darley & Latane (1968) – bystander intervention using seizure

Somerville delinquency study – large counseling intervention program for

at risk boys, that, in the end appeared to have slightly damaging net

effects

Leventhall, Singer, Jones (1965) – inoculation study, where plotting a

specific plan for getting an inoculation led to much increased

follow-through (channel factor)

Sherif (1937) Autokinetic effect – where Sx judgment of “moving lights”

was substantially altered by being in groups (quick development,

and persistence of group norm)

Sherif (1953, 1955, 1961) – camp studies, robber’s cave, eagles/rattlers…

Asch (1951, 52, 55, 56) – line studies

Bennington Studies (Newcomb, 1943)– shifting political ideals in college

Freedman & Fraser (1966) – foot in door studies, window cards and

billboards

Millgram

Rozin, P. (2001). Social psychology and science: Some lessons from Solomon Asch. Personality and

Social Psychology Review, 5, 2-14.

-The article is a ‘plea for balance, for a greater consideration for identification and description of phenomena and invariances as opposed to modeling, hypothesis testing, experiments, and sophisticated approaches.’

Analyzes social psychology methodology and journal articles relative to those of biology; claims that by striving to be a harder science, social psychology lacks the ‘observant’ background that the monumental theory of evolution and discovery of the double helix structure of DNA are routed in.

I. Introduction

Asch’s studies as prominent paradigms in social psychology and social cognition because his experiments have an orientation to real world phenomena and sensitivity to context.

-Most social psychology experiments observe acts in an experimental setting and

lose meaning to due this isolation from natural context; most of the experiments are not preceded by work on description of universal/contingent invariances, and as a results are tested on a limited range of salient methodology

-Rozin claims that because social psychology wants to be based on the natural sciences, “as a result of a misinterpretation of the approach of the basic natural sciences and a focus on design, experiment, and certainty over relevance, reality, and durability, much of the current field of modern social psychology has an unnecessarily narrow focus that . . . a) pays little attention to powerful cultural influences b) discourages the discovery of new phenomena and creativity c) discourages the description of basic regularities in the social world, and d) presents a rather narrow model of what is acceptable science to graduate students in the area. (p 3)”

II. Methods and approaches in social psychology

-He goes on to show that the majority of papers in a random sample of JPSPs use only undergraduates and do not describe any background information of the subjects (race, gender, religious affiliation, etc). They use ANOVAs, but ignore continuous independent variables, which constrains the type of study that can be done and the way in which one can think about problems and experiments. There are nearly no interview or observational studies done. Rozin compares the techniques of studies in a biology journal and find that those studies are more demonstrative in nature (informed curiosity). Rozin suggests that psychology is a prematurely advanced science and needs to stay focused on the “big social phenomena.”

III. Methodology in more advance natural sciences

-Current methodology that dominates in social psychology is the interplay between theory-model and empirical results.

-Rozin suggests that social psychology wants so badly to become an advanced science that the psychologists slight earlier work, whereas hard sciences emphasize early work. Also, social psychologists need to use something as concrete as Mendelian genetics, Bayes’ Law of gases, Darwin’s observations on Galapagos, to build on, rather than slight the ‘informed curiosity’ of early science.

-Behaviorism, ethology routed in the world, learning in context, should emulate this; though social psychologists have the burden of explaining mental processes as well as behavior, have the advantage of using communication with participants as well as their own self reflections.

IV. Modern Social Psychology

-Here he loosely relates Darwin and Watson/Crick to social psychology, making the argument that, ‘much of the science that led up to these great two discoveries is of the type that would be rejected by many modern social psychologists and journal editors as crude, pre-scientific, poorly controlled, susceptible to alternate explanation, and most critically, not ‘model or hypothesis driven.’ (pg. 7)

V. Modes of Approach in the Biological Sciences

-Informal curiosity is justifiable in referred biology journals; furthermore, premier journals consider replication in another species very important – psychology would publish such replications, but in lower journals.

VI. The illusion of definitiveness in Experiments

-Though multiple causation and complex interactions require different methodology, the experimental procedures in social psychology are not ideal because a) they allow for the possibility that the results will not bear on real social situations and b) they may generalize to only a very narrow range of apparently similar experimental situations.

VII. Prematurely Advanced Science

-Social Psychologists desire to be natural scientists.

-Use sensation and perception as well as cognitive science as principle methods of social psychology, but not necessarily ideal since if you know the specifics of a person, it is not generalize across a situation, whereas perception and sensation models do.

VIII. Studying Football

-Creates a parody of a grant submission, where tennis is the hot topic of the time and no one studies football; should provide opportunities for those that want to study topics based on informed curiosity even if they lack prior theoretical and scientific support.

IX. Conclusion

-Reiterates main point that the article is a ‘plea for balance, for a greater consideration for identification and description of phenomena and invariances as opposed to modeling, hypothesis testing, experiments, and sophisticated approaches. Since we bring insight into the situations we study, we should take advantage of this likeness since it provides opportunities that other fields of science lack.

Wilson, T.D. (2005). The message is the method: Celebrating and exporting the experimental approach. Psychological Inquiry, 16, 185-193.

· Wilson considers the application of controlled experiments to psychological theory to be the most important innovation in social psychology (and indeed psychology in general).

· He argues that social psychology is now in a position to take up the Lewinian approach (“action research”), which stressed rigorous theory formation and testing and using the knowledge derived from experiments to solve social problems.

· He gives a number of examples of where psychologists could be useful partners for policy-makers, and others where actual comparisons demonstrated that the effects of interventions can be non-obvious

· Diversity education

· Most diversity programs are created for businesses and schools by consulting firms

· These firms rarely employ control conditions to test whether their programs have any effects on reducing participants’ prejudice or increasing cohesivity in groups, instead relying on simple feedback from participants abouth whether they found the treatment worthwhile

· Cambridge-Somerville youth study

· Two randomly assigned groups of “at risk” boys, one given psychotherapy, a great deal of attention, activities, etc. over a five year period, the other control group left alone

· Though the boys who received the intervention reported feeling positively about the experience, there was no evidence that they fared better, and in fact they were significantly more likely to have multiple criminal offenses compared to the control group

· Critical incident stress debriefing (CISD)

· Brings together individuals who’ve experienced a traumatic event to discuss it, immediately after the event for 3-4 hours

· Individuals report positive effects, but comparisons to controls demonstrates that those who get CISD are more likely to experience later PTSD problems

· Moving to Opportunity

· Some low-income families moved from a low income area to housing in a higher income one

· In the first two years, crime rates among adolescents fell, but after 5 years, though females showed a continuing decreased rate of arrest, males were more likely to be arrested for property crimes (perhaps due to the fact that there was more to steal in a wealthier area)

· Cites a number of researchers who have both done a great deal of experimental/theory-based work in basic social psychology and have also worked on applied research, e.g., Elliot Aronson (dissonance theory, jigsaw classroom), Claude Steele (stereotype threat, both theoretical and applied)

Aronson, E. (in press). An autobiography. To appear in M. Runyan & G. Lindzey (Eds.). The history of psychology in autobiography.

In this autobiography, Aronson discusses his childhood, how he became interested in social psychology, and a number of the papers and experiments that he considers to be the proudest moments of his career. He also stresses how his family background influenced him, and is noted for having both completed groundbreaking experimental research as well as applying psychological theory to relevant social issues. Since I don’t know how useful Aronson’s personal background will be for anyone on this final (this reading is generally unlikely to be that important), I’ll just summarize some of his main contributions.

· Aronson & Mills (1959)

· Classic dissonance study - demonstrated that people who went through a severe initiation to join an ultimately boring group enjoyed it more than those who went through a mild initiation

· Presumably because the thought of the severe initiation and the lack of satisfaction with the group are dissonant cogntions

· However, Aronson states that he later realized the dissonance was actually related to the self-concept, between “I am a sensible, competent person” and “I went through a severe initiation to join a worthless group”

· Aronson & Carlsmith (1962)

· Students who expected to fail at a task (by having already failed a number of times) showed dissonance arousal when they later succeeded.

· After succeeding once following numerous failures, students would change their responses from accurate to inaccurate ones in order to preserve the consistent negative self-concept

· Aronson & Linder (1965) – we like people who speak negatively about us and slowly begin to act more positively toward us more than people who start out with strong positive feelings (before we really know them)

· Jigsaw classroom

· Social psychology had predicted that desegregation would be a great success but it wasn’t

· Aronson and colleagues after visiting several schools realized that the problem was that the classroom was too competitive an environment, which reinforced preexisting inequalities

· In the jigsaw classroom, students were split into diverse groups, and each student was responsible for one portion of the information necessary to complete a project, creating a cooperative environment

· Reduced gaps between ethnic groups, increased attendance

· Using dissonance techniques to increase condom use in students

· Had students give speeches about the dangers of AIDS that implored audiences to use condoms, and later asked them to talk about instances in which they hadn’t used condoms.

· Induced dissonance in those students, who later bought more condoms than students in a control group which had only written the speech, and under self report the experimental students self-reported much higher condom use

Week 2. Groups and Group Dynamics (Week of October 2)

Zajonc, R.B. (1965). Social facilitation. Science, 149, 256-268.

Goal: To provide an explanation for the contradictory results that had been found with regards to how the presence of others affects performance on different tasks. Reviews studies with different species of animals and humans and provides a generalization of the phenomena that accounts for the mixed results.

1) Audience effects: behavior in the presence of passive spectators

a. Up until the 1930s there were mixed results about how audiences affected performance; some studies found an improvement in performance in some tasks – motor responses (Travis), multiplication & word association (Dashiel) – while others found a decrease in performance – learning nonsense syllables or mazes (Pessin), etc.

b. Solution: Performance is facilitated and learning is impaired in the presence of spectators. Why? Audiences enhance the emission of dominant responses; drive, arousal, and activation are known to enhance dominant responses. Now put them together.

2) Co-actor effects: behavior in the presence of other individuals engaged in same activity.

a. Results from these studies (Allport, 1920) fit with the generalization above: Presence of others raises probability of dominant responses, if strong incorrect responses prevail, the presence of others will be detrimental to performance (happens with stutterers, for ex – Travis)

3) Avoidance learning (in the presence of others):

a. If exhibiting the behavior is the dominant response (drinking water), then the presence of others will make it harder to inhibit the behavior (stop drinking) (Rasmusen rat experiment)

b. However, once the avoidance response is learned (i.e., now the dominant response) presence of others now enhances the avoidant behavior (Adum & Tatum experiment with med students).

4) Generalization: The presence of others increases arousal (though this is still only an assumption at that time), which enhances emission of dominant responses. Therefore, the presence of an audience or co-actors enhances performance on a task that is well known, while it impairs learning a new task.

Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K. (1950).The spatial ecology of group formation. In L. Festinger, S. Schachter, & K. Back (Eds.), Social pressure in informal groups, Chapter 4 (pp. 146-161). Stanford University Press.

Goal: Study on the ecological determinants of friendship and group formation.

Background: Previous research had shown inverse relationship between distance and marriage selection. 76% of marriages in New Haven (1940) were between people living 20 blocks away and 35% percent within 5 blocks.

Westgate and Westgate West studies: Perfect place to study this relationship. Housing projects; people moving in were pseudo-randomly assigned; no previous basis for friendships.

Sociometric data was collected by asking people: “What 3 people in Westgate or Westgate West do you see more of socially?” Their choices were related to units of physical distance. Showed that even small distances (20 or 30 feet) played a role in the establishment of friendships.

This relationship holds for distances within a building as well as for distances between buildings, within a community.

Mechanism: Physical distance (next-door neighbor vs. 5 doors down) and functional distance (living by the stairs, the garbage dumps, etc.) affect the number of passive contacts (nodding head, smiling, saying hello) that people have. Passive contacts evolve into acquaintanceships, which evolve into casual friendships, which evolve into friendships.

Note: Important to keep in mind that these were communities of graduate students. Therefore, they were all homogeneous communities, and it’s still an empirical question whether these factors will have the same effect among more heterogeneous communities.

Sherif, M. (1966). The experiments (Chapter 5). In common predicament (pp. 71-93). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Goal: Study on the characteristics of intergroup relationships.

Conducted in the 1940- and 50’s this group of experiments by Sherif examined cooperation vs. competition in light of WWII and in-group- and out-group conflict.

Summary of the Method:

Sherif set up an elaborate summer camp for boys (11-12 yrs old), at which every staff member was part of the research team. Sherif conducted a series of experiments examining how groups formed norms and identities, and how they interacted with other groups.

All of the campers were selected in order to minimize the differences between them. Then, the boys were divided into 2 different cabins so as to form two arbitrary groups. After the groups were stably formed, the different groups were brought into contact under conditions intended to create competition and hostility. Finally, tried to reduce hostility between groups by the creation of common goals.

Hypotheses:

These experiments encompassed a number of hypotheses. The general themes were that even when arbitrarily assigned to groups, boys would show greater affinity for the group they were put in, to the extent that affinity w/ In-group members would be greater than for friendships based on mutual interest etc. w/ members of the out-groups. Groups of strangers were predicted to develop norms and status structures. Members of a group were predicted to overestimate the ability of high status members of their own group. Competition between groups was predicted to increase hostility between groups.

Findings

Pretty much nothing unexpected happened (experimental design??). Boys were more loyal to their camps, regardless of whom they formed initial friendships with before the boys were divided. Groups tended to evolve their own behavior and status norms. Boys tended to think that high-status members of their groups were the most capable. The experimenters found that with repeated, positive interactions to solve a common problem, different camps of boys could become friendly, and overcome out-group prejudice.

· Key here is the dramatic experimental stage that Sherif and co set up. Ability to tweak processes through subsequent summers, led to increased refinement of theories about in group and out-group favoritism. However, the factors that were believed to produce this behavior were not explicitly tested against a comparison group.

· Important to keep in mind: 11-12 year-old American boys may be an ideal group in which to test hypotheses regarding competitiveness. Question about whether this would generalize to other populations.

· Also, we have no idea what the role of the research staff (camp counselors) actually was, and how much this affected the results.

Zimbardo, P.G. (1969). The human choice: Individuation, reason, and order versus deindividuation, impulse and chaos. In W.T. Arnold & D. Levine (Eds.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, Vol. 17 (pp. 237-307). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

· Part of the non-Lewinian research tradition. Examined the behavior of groups, but mostly as a way of characterizing the way individuals behaved in these situations (involving groups). Explained the phenomena in terms of the individual, not the group.

· The phenomena: People in group settings are more likely to act in ways the violate established norms, frequently in ways that are harmful to themselves or others (e.g., behavior of mobs, riots, etc), but doesn’t work exclusively for anti-social behavior (e.g., expressions of open love in the sixties).

· The proposed explanation – deindividuation: People in group settings experience anonymity and diffusion of responsibility. Changes in their perception of the self and others leads to a reduction in the threshold of normally restrained behavior.

· De-individuation can be further understood as the opposite of individuation (duh! sorry). Individuation is the process by which an individual is conscious of freely making a commitment for which he then assumes responsibility. Individuation causes the individual to internalize the motivations for his behavior and thus to exert control over them.

Summary

Hypothesis:

· Examine behavior in a manner where social identity is taken away. Not just anonymity but also diffusion of responsibilities. Being a part of something that is larger than ourselves.

· Anonymity reduces the concern for social evaluation. This loss off identifiability can be experienced by being submerged in a crowd.

· Diffusion of responsibility occurs when responsibility for an actions is shared with others. A loss of responsibility may also be felt if the relationship between an action and its effects is obscured.

· Presence of a group provides both anonymity and diffusion of responsibility. It also provides additional functions, such as: models of behavior, triggers of behavior, and arousal.

Experiments:

1. They set up a study on the effects of anonymity among college coeds. For half the subjects, anonymity was induced by never using their names; for the other half, identifiability was emphasized by making them wear name tags. Both groups delivered electric shocks to another girl. The anonymous group exhibited much more aggression than the identifiable group. Also, in the anonymous groups aggression increased with successive trials. While there was no "enforcer" like in Milgram's studies, the girls obediently shocked the victim for as long as allowed. "Conditions which induce feelings of remoteness lead to lowered self-consciousness, less embarrassment, and reduced inhibitions about punishing the victim."

2. Another study allowed a release of aggression by the subjects against some confederates pretending to be resisters. The "catharsis" had no effect on reducing aggression and actually increased it a bit. The test was duplicated among a group of Belgian soldiers under even stricter control of the important variables. However, the opposite effect was found – the anonymous group shocked the victim less often and will less intensity, and felt less satisfied after shocking them. In this case the soldiers were somewhat de-individuated by their roles as soldiers. Putting hoods over their faces made them feel isolated and more anxious. The soldiers in groups identified actually felt more de-individuated because of the soldier’s group mentality.

1. The researchers also conducted a field experiment in auto vandalism. A car left on a street in New York was stripped in 10 minutes. Over 26 more hours a steady parade of vandals removed all sorts of parts. Nine hours later destruction began. In less than three days 23 incidents of destructive behavior. In fact, most vandalism was observed by one or more passersby, most destruction was during the day. In Palo Alto, the car was untouched and even the hood was lowered by a passerby so it wouldn't get wet in the rain!. However, once the researchers initiated some vandalism to the car at Stanford, others eventually joined in.

· Findings:

2. Dehumanization is possible when a large flow of people must be processed. Also people become desensitized to the empathies aroused by unfortunate people and eventually felt helpless and then resentful at the emotional burden caused by these unfortunates. Doctors must learn to see patients as bodies to distance themselves from the immoral act of cutting into another person. Others who are doing something purely for self-gratification need to dehumanize others.

Relevance

· Important aspect of non-Lewinian tradition which eventually will be lumped with the group literature

Crocker, J., & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of stigma. Psychological Review, 96, 608-630.

· Several psychological theories predict that members of stigmatized groups should have low global self-esteem (= generalized feeling of goodness, worthiness, self-respect.) Reasons for this:

1. Reflected appraisals – self-concept depends on the opinions of others. We know how we are seen by others, and we adopt their viewpoint. Stigmatized members should be aware of the negative feelings people have toward them, and might incorporate these into their self-concept, producing lower self-esteem.

2. Self-Fulfilling Prophecies – people may come to behave in ways that are consistent with others’ expectations. This change in behavior may then cause them to change their self-concept due to self-perception.

3. Efficacy-Based Self-Esteem – self-concept develops through efficacious interaction with the environment. Stigmatized group members should have lower self-esteem because they are afforded less opportunity, control, and resources than those in more advantaged groups.

· Despite these speculations, there is very little evidence for the idea that stigmatized members have lower global self-esteem. In fact, members of these groups often have just as high, or higher, global self-esteem than members of the advantaged outgroup. Why?

· Authors hypothesize that membership in a stigmatized group offers protection in the following ways:

1. One can attribute negative feedback to prejudice against their group – an external attribution is given after failure, so a stigmatized member does not have to believe that it was their inadequacy that caused the failure. This preserves self-esteem.

2. One compares their outcomes with those of the (stigmatized) ingroup rather than the advantaged outgroup – Comparing performance with the advantaged group would likely lower self-esteem (since the advantaged group has more opportunity, etc.), so members of disadvantaged groups instead compare themselves to those who are similar to themselves.

3. Once can selectively devalue the dimensions on which their group does not do well, and selectively value the dimensions on which the group does do well – the things that the group does well are parts of their self-definition; the things the group is not good at are ignored, and not considered part of self-definition.

· These mechanisms are special cases of self-serving biases that have been documented in the literature. The authors highlight that being a member of a stigmatized group offers special opportunities for self-protection (and one might add that this is so because members of stigmatized groups are also victims of a special kind of threat to their identity, “not only from prejudice and discrimination, but also from daily setbacks, failures, and rejections”).

· However, certain factors moderate the effect that each of the protection strategies offer. Here are a few examples of moderators mentioned:

1. Time since the acquisition of the stigma – it is harder to become stigmatized later in life than it is to be born into a stigmatized group. This is because you may not know how to use the protection strategies (e.g., takes time to learn to devalue outcomes that are no longer attainable, or to compare oneself to members of a comparably stigmatized group). The authors cite acquired physical disabilities, disease, and rape as examples of cases in which self-esteem suffers.

2. Concealability of the stigma – The less obvious the stigma is, the less the individuals suffer from stereotype. However, it is also true that individuals that conceal their stigma cannot use some of the mentioned protection strategies.

3. Accepting negative attitudes towards one’s stigmatized group – internalizing negative attitudes about one’s group leads to lowered self-esteem.

4. Responsibility for the stigmatizing condition – when people believe that the person with the stigma is not responsible for it, there will be treated better. Also, if a person blames himself for his stigma, his self-esteem will likely be lower, and it will be harder to use the protection strategies.

· Although these strategies help protect the individual’s self-esteem they may also have a negative effect on motivation, and may lead to group differences in aspirations, skills, and achievements (see also Steele). Additionally, if individuals overuse these strategies they may miss opportunities for learning or improvement.

· Conclusion: stigmatized individuals are able to protect and buffer global self-esteem, but this does not mean that discrimination is not harmful in other ways.

Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613-629.

Goal: To identify how being part of a group that is negatively stereotyped in a particular domain may impair the ability of members of that group in that domain.

Assumption/starting point: In order to have high achievement in a particular domain, individuals must care about the domain. High achievement in this domain must be part of one’s self-identity, as this causes achievement motivation. Could it be that members of stereotyped groups lack this identification with certain domains? Why could this be?

Hypotheses: Negative stereotypes of one’s group in a certain domain create a threat to one’s ability when performing in this domain (“stereotype threat”). This threat causes an emotional reaction that interferes with performance, causing individuals to under-perform. Furthermore (and more important in the present article), being unable to perceive good prospects for achievement cause one to disidentify from this domain, creating a further lack of motivation and causing further declines in achievement. This disidentification has the terrible consequence of causing individuals to underperform even when they’re not under stereotype threat.

Process: First, individuals from a stereotyped group who identify with a domain (e.g., women in science) are more likely to suffer from stereotype threat. Being aware that they may be seen stereotypically and caring about the domain creates a pressure that may cause them to underperform.

Second, as a consequence of having to constantly deal with this, individuals may be motivated to disidentify with the domain (i.e., to stop caring). Disidentification causes a decrease in achievement motivation and achievement thus declines.

Experimental evidence:

1. Evidence in support of stereotype threat: Spencer, Quinn & Steele, 1997 – showed that women score less than men on a math test, but that this difference goes away if they are explicitly told that this test does not show any gender differences. Same effect was achieved with African Americans in a test that was presented as being diagnostic of ability (performance lower than for Whites) or as not being diagnostic of ability (difference in performance goes away).

2. Evidence in support of disidentification:

a. Crocker & Major (1989 – see above summary)

b. Indirect evidence: Achievement in certain domains is not part of overall self-esteem for stereotyped individuals (Hare & Costenell, 1985; Major et al., in press).

c. Direct evidence: Experiment which manipulated the level of stereotype threat experienced by female math test-takers. Women under stronger stereotype threat disidentified with math more than ones under weaker stereotype threat (Stoutemeyer & Steele)

Abstract: A general theory of domain identification is used to describe achievement barriers faced by women in advanced quantitative areas and by African Americans in school. The theory assumes that sustained school success requires identification with a school and its subdomains; that societal pressures on these groups (e.g., economic disadvantage, gender roles) can frustrate this identification; and that in school domains where these groups are negatively stereotyped, those who have become domain identified face the further barrier of stereotype threat, the threat that others' judgments or their own actions will negatively stereotype them in the domain. Research shows that this threat dramatically depresses the standardized test performance of women and African Americans who are in the academic vanguard of their groups (offering a new interpretation of group differences in standardized test performance), that it causes disidentification with school, and that practices that reduce this threat can reduce these negative effects.

Gladwell, M. (1996, June 3). The tipping point. The New Yorker.

[Available at http://www.gladwell.com/1996/1996_06_03_a_tipping.htm]

Gladwell, M. (1999, January 11). Six degrees of Lois Weisberg. The New Yorker.

[Available at http://www.gladwell.com/1999/1999_01_11_a_weisberg.htm]

Week 3. Compliance and Social Pressure (Week of October 9)

Milgram, S. (1965). Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority. Human Relations,

18, 57-76.

Study Aim: To explore under what conditions will one hurt someone else when told to do so and under what conditions will he refuse.

Organizes hostility into 3 fundamental elements: authority, executant, victim

Debriefing: extended discussion, “friendly reconciliation with victim,” detailed report of study sent afterwards, psychiatric evaluation of participants, their responses mostly favorable

Obedience in this study assumes hierarchical, dominant-subordinate relationship

Sample: All male, 20-50 yrs., paid $4.50

Told they were in a study examining the effect of punishment on memory

Rigged a drawing so that every participant drew “teacher” and every confederate drew “learner.” Experimenter insists on administering shock for every wrong answer given using a simulated shock generator ranging from 30 volts (slight shock) to 450 volts (extremely severe shock); set up so that learner performs poorly and graduates to higher levels of shock quickly; taped learner’s voice to standardize protests to shock and painful cries; while experimenter urges on hesitant subjects by saying “you have no choice, you must go on!”

Pilot Studies: 1. Victim behind glass/barely visible; no vocal protests ( nearly all went to 450 volts; 2. Mild protests ( still inadequate; 3. Stronger protests ( still many went all the way, but mean voltage where subject stopped lowered and spread increased.

Results: Obedience to authority was greater than expected and found that it was necessary to have vocal feedback from the victim to elicit any defiance.

Found that subjects avoided looking at the victim ( wanted to examine how salience of victim affects obedience

Immediacy: 4 conditions – Remote (victim in another room, pounded on wall once @ 300v) = 34% defiance; Voice (heard victim through wall cry out) – 37.5%, Proximity (victim 1 ½ feet from subject) – 60%; Touch-proximity (had to place victim’s hand on shockplate for ever wrong answer) – 70%

Possible explanations: visual cues trigger empathy; denial/narrowing of cognitive field to put victim out of mind; reciprocal fields (victim scrutinizes your actions ( guilt; similar to blindfolding someone about to be executed.; phenomenal unity of act (proximity brings action and consequence closer together spatially); incipient group formation (feel more aligned to experimenter when close, proximal victim shifts alliance to him); acquired behavioral dispositions (disposition to not harm others present when victim is proximal, learn to harm others easier when further away).

Closeness of Authority: 3 conditions – few feet away (26 obedient); orders by phone (9); tape recorded and never seen

Power severely curtailed when subjects did not have to face experimenter; some subjects even administered shocks that were lower in voltage as act of passive defiance; reappearance of E forced further obedience; Proximal relation of E to subject had greater effect than proximity of victim.

Obedient were more tense than those who defied according to self-report ( conflict between disposition not to harm others and tendency to obey authority

Background Authority: effect of Yale’s reputation on willingness to obey

Changed Locales to run down office building, inside marginally respectable looking

-Somewhat reduced obedience from 65% to 48%

Group Effects: 2 disobedient others ( 90% disobeyed too

2 obedient others ( strengthened obedience slightly

Subjects not directly administering shocks but part of group that did – only 3/40 defied.

Subjects determining shock level – 2 wanted higher some insisted on lower, others neither (no numbers reported here)

Had people estimate when someone would disobey: typically underestimates reported (psychiatrists basing opinion on disposition, not situation)

Contend that for certain circumstances, situation is determinant of behavior; questions raised as to role of personality and motivation; People willing to act inhumanely and disregard conscience if order comes from a legitimate authority.

Baumrind, D. (1964). Some thoughts on ethics of research. American Psychologist, 19, 421-423.

Study of obedience not sufficient in lab setting: lab and experimenter automatically create obedience level greater than baseline (outside lab setting) because study volunteers are by their very nature ready to obey

Points out that Milgram does not detail debriefing procedures: found them unconvincing and hard to believe that any procedure would suffice given the graphic illustration of the stress, tension, anxiety endured by the subjects; also questions ecological validity, sampling techniques, generalizability, replicability.

Says benefit to humanity does not justify that harm being done

Questions parallels Milgram draws to Nazi Germany ( victims there seen as less than human and the agent is acting for a larger “cause” believing he is righteous in his actions

Threat to public image of psychology ( points out importance of fully informed consent and extensive debriefing in emotionally distressing experiments, given they are even necessary.

Milgram, S. (1964). Issues in the study of obedience. American Psychologist, 19, 848-852.

(Response to Baumrind article)

Milgram starts by stating that her critique was based on deficient information that was easily accessible in footnotes and references (other reports in study series);

Points out that stress/tension effects produced were not intentional; underestimated reactions based on colleagues estimation and group of psychiatrists who lead them to assume the subjects would break off from the experiment.

Initial subjects exhibiting stress later endorsed experiment, so he continued with studies.

Debriefing rebuttal: defiant subjects were supported and obediants reassured; comprehensive reports mailed out, friendly reconciliation with victim, & told shocks were fake; follow up questionnaires with reaction to experiment (only 1.3% negative feelings, 80% felt such studies were important, and 74% said they learned something bout themselves).

If he felt it was dangerous, he would not have continued; put a lot of care into sending out carefully worded report explaining value of their participation; participants understood they were just carrying out an experiment afterwards; had psychiatric evaluation of most distressed subjects one year later and found no signs of trauma.

Rejects her contention that obedience was not ecologically valid because it occurred in a situation where obedience was the appropriate behavior by pointing out that those are exactly the contexts in which obedience is appropriate and are precisely the ones we should examine.

Responding to Baumrind highlighting the differences between Nazi Germany and lab setting, he says he only uses that example as an illustration of destructive effect of obedience, not as a framework for his design. His design allows for looking at mechanisms underlying obedience to legitimate authority like the Experimenter & diffusion of responsibility.

Baurmrind felt that 65% obedience due to subjects not having a reasonable alternative to disobey, but Milgram counters that many disobey depending on condition, (e.g. in once condition, 90% disobey)

Points out a contradiction in her argument: on one hand, she argues that experiment cannot generalize outside the lab, on other hand she states that subjects will lose trust in authority figures outside lab setting ( states that losing trust in authority figure requesting harmful behavior, if distrust does indeed emerge, would be beneficial, increasing awareness of indiscriminate submission to authority.

No reason to divide learning about people from helping people.

Orne, M. T., & Holland, C. H. (1968). On the ecological validity of laboratory deceptions. International Journal of Psychiatry, 6, 282-293.

Begins by pointing out that the “flair” and shock value of Milgram’s experiments contributed to the oversight of questioning the validity of his methods, such as: the plausibility of situation to prevent subject suspicion.

-Need for post experimental inquiry to assess potential suspicion, otherwise, unclear if subject is behaving naturally; no way of knowing if subject were deceived in this study.

-Subjects have a tendency, they say, to evaluate experimental cues: setting, experimenter, purpose, instructions; perception of experiment does not rely solely on explicit direction ( congruence of cues indicate plausibility, thus slight changes in procedure could influence behavior (e.g., addressing spontaneous responses by subject could vary greatly); Also, difficult to prevent subject from communicating with eachother.

*Milgram gives no indication of procedural snafus*

More implausibility: Role of teacher seems pointless in eyes of subject for purpose of the study, especially when operating a shock generator requires no training of any kind; E demanding victim to be hurt and showing no concern to victim cries, especially for a trivial study on memory, seems unrealistic; Technical problem of vocal feedback timing: only cries out when shocked then goes silent and then responds to question calmly.

Suggest that for immediacy study when victim is close, using good actors may increase plausibility and this is way you see a reduction in obedience.

Gives example of hypnotized girl wiling to feign killing people but immediately “awakens” when asked to get undressed.

Being told (as opposed to having an option) to carry out the experiment implies that it is safe to do so.

Holland (1967) replicated experiment – subjects reported that when victim stopped responding, they thought the victim escaped or was released; postexperimental interviews indicated that 75% did not believe it was real; also had condition telling people something fishy about experiment but to go along anyway and found no differences in behavior between this group and unaware group; blind E could not predict which group was which.

Constrains inference of obedience to contexts perceived to be safe.To understand what they are obeying exactly, need to know subjects’ perceptions; by volunteering, you are agreeing to do whatever the E asks of you; Orne (1962) had subjects complete tedious, serial additions for lengthy periods of time and then tear up their work and continue; did this many times without question.

Total compliance dependent upon awareness of experimental situation and willingness to trust E.

Also raises issue of the absurd conditions of the experiment: subjects shocking a heart patient is evidence of them not believing in the experiment.

Milgram, S. (1972). Interpreting obedience: Error and evidence. In A. Miller (Ed.), The social psychology of psychological research (pp. 138-154). New York: Free Press.

Response to Orne and Holland’s criticism re: postinterview procedures: 1) doesn’t matter if they do not believe the experiment is about learning and memory, nor does it matter if they suspect they are the focus of the study 2) does matter that they believe the learner is getting painful shocks. Milgram did assess participant perception both immediately afterwards and a year later. For a manipulation check, asked subject how painful they thought shocks were, most rated them close to extremely painful. 2 gave low pain ratings (both obedient) but Milgram suggests that this could be interpreted as a defense mechanism to rationalize their behavior. Also one year follow up questionnaire about belief of study, ¾ believed the set-up; even eliminating those who were suspicious, you get a 60% obedience rate. Milgram felt is was not ethical to remove suspicious subjects as that would “inadvertently shape” his hypothesis.

Counters argument that people are trying to guess real intention of experiment. Sample not exposed to psychological experiments, especially a community sample; most subjects treated experimenter as though he were a psychiatrist. Cannot assume subjects are all suspicious, only those prone to paranoia perhaps.

Also explains that being a teacher in charge of shocking learner was accompanied by detailed instructions and stated why the subject giving the shocks was required.

Also countered that cool reaction of E can be interpreted as professionalism.

Emphasizes process of gradual commitment by having participant increase shock level slightly, one step at a time.

Points out that Orne’s “experiments” are merely anecdotal, observing one or two people in each condition; discounts hypnosis example asserting that there is no way of knowing what the hypnotized woman was thinking and has nothing to do with authoritarian obedience embedded in a hierarchical social structure.

States that his study has nothing to do with persuading random people but involves legitimate authority figure prescribing behavior and the meaning of that behavior.

In response to experiment and anecdote about tedious, pointless tasks, Milgram points out that the shock task was “coordinated as a set of rational purposes,” which is more realistic. Important that meaning is attached to the act, and is not arbitrary; and it is explicit that harm Is not the intention which forces subject to decide whose request to weigh more (the E or victim).

Orne construes demand characteristics as impediment, but Milgram views these as the focus of his investigation; Orne also states that his colleagues could not be induced to act in such a manner but this just speaks to the importance of implementing a hierarchical dominant-subordinate relationship.

Another refute to Orne’s question of successful deception is illustrated in similar studies in which participants subject themselves to unpleasant tasks willingly.

Points out that Orne’s own study getting subject to perform tedious tasks is evidence for the power of a legitimate authority figure.

Similar effects in more naturalistic setting in which nurses are told by physician to administer meds to a patient that is actually double their allowed dosage, 21/22 nurses comply…speaks to ecological validity of his own findings of authoritative power.

Orne only discredits phenomenon without presenting alternative, improved methods of study. Finally, he does concede with Orne’s point that it is invaluable to increase experimental sophistication.

Freedman, J.L., & Fraser, S.C. (1966). Compliance without pressure: The foot-in-the-door technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 196-202.

Previous work on external pressure: the more the better..except under cognitive dissonance; sometimes minimum pressure is better (minimize pressure, maximize effectiveness).

Foot in the door or gradation technique: compliance to small request increases likelihood of complying to larger one (e.g., brainwashing, propaganda, advertising).

Experiment 1: 3 conditions – Performance (small request that they fulfill, then large request); One condition (only large request); Agree only (small request that they do not fulfill, then large); Famliarization (no request).

Small request: answer survey questions about soap products

Large request: survey team of 5-6 men come to your house to inventory all household products in your cupboards.

2/3 agreed to small request, all of those that refused, also refused large request

Found that large request compliance was greatest for performance condition > agree and familiarization > one condition

Small request does increase compliance

Not due to familiarity since it didn’t differ from one condition bud did from performance; simply agreeing lower than performance but not significantly ( agreeing may be part of the effect

Question as to why and how first request affect compliance still unanswered.

Possible explanations: obligation to particular person; increase commitment to particular cause; for similar requests, cannot disagree to larger request based on principles since already agreed to small request, therefore, less reasons available to disagree.

Limitation: E not blind; 2nd study to examine possibilities and address limitation

Experiment 2: In person requests; 1st request: small sign for safe driving or sign petition to keep CA beautiful; Two weeks later, 2nd request very large sign saying drive careful (obscures view of house and front door); 4 groups: same task, same issue; same task, different issue; different task, same issue; different task, different issue.

Control group: no 1st request, only 2nd

No difference between groups for agreement to 1st request; 55% complied versus 20% in control group; 1st request agreement increased compliance to 2nd request across groups; same issue/same task had highest compliance but wasn’t significantly higher than other 3.

Since different issues, could not be matter of principle explanation or sense of commitment to a cause; since different people, could not be sense of obligation.

Attitude change: general increase in wanting to get involved; thinks their the type of person who does these types of things; or change in attitude towards compliance in general.

Study findings limited to good causes sponsored by not for profit organizations, may not generalize to political or marketing campaigns, for example.

Cialdini, R.B., Vincent, J.E., Lewis, S.K., Catalan, J., Wheeler, D., & Darby, B.L. (1975). Reciprocal concessions procedure for inducing compliance: The door-in-the-face technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 206-215.

Door in the face: making an extreme request first that is sure to be rejected, followed by a more moderate second favor.

Two reasons this method should be effective: 1) Reciprocity- the authors extend this reasoning to include, “you should make concessions to those who make concession to you.” Willingness to compromise should elicit the same behavior in return. 2) Mutual concessions – must be some indication of retreat from the initial position before the other will be willing to budge.

Study 1: 3 conditions – request for favor (smaller request only control); request for smaller favor after refusal of larger favor (rejection-moderation); only heard about larger favor before request for smaller favor (exposure control, to examine mere contrast effects)

72 students; experimenter introduced himself as being with a county youth counseling program; then made either extreme request followed by smaller one, or just smaller one.

Extreme request: volunteer as big brother or sister 2 hrs/week for 2 years at juvenile detention center; Smaller request: chaperone juvenile delinquents on 2 hr. trip to the zoo.

In exposure control, subjects were presented with both favors and asked if they would participate in either one.

Results: No subject agreed to large favor; found highest compliance in rejection-moderation condition (50%), p=0.011 compared to exposure control (25%) followed by smaller request only control (16.7%), no difference between controls.

Study 2 (replication and extension): Wanted to confirm that the change from the large favor to the smaller one is perceived as a concession by the requester. To do this, they compared the rejection-moderation condition using the same requester and using two different requesters for each favor.

3 conditions: small request only, two requester control, rejection-moderation using blind experimenters.

RM was found to have significantly higher compliance rates (55.5%) than the two requester control (10.5%) and the smaller request only (31.5%); these groups did not significantly differ. Two requester control appears to inhibit compliance which is consistent with other findings that people are consistent in their responses to favors.

Study 3: Addresses possible explanations of social desirability and tenacious requesters.

3 conditions: RM, equivalent request control (asking 2nd favor of equivalent size, should not increase compliance if phenomenon is function of initial large favor), smaller request control.

No subjects complied with extreme request, but 8 subjects complied with initial equivalent request (2 hour trip to museum with juv. Delinquents). Also, no difference between control conditions, equivalent request and smaller request both 33.3%. The RM condition had a 54.1% compliance rate, but was only marginally higher, p =0.091.

Suggest that tenacity of requester is not an issue since there was no difference between equivalent and smaller request conditions. Also, only 1 of the 8 that agreed to initial request in equivalent condition refused the 2nd request, suggesting consistency as opposed to a persistent requester (22/24 responded similarly to both requests).

Powerful because it requires little persuasion, is derived from social norm (reciprocal concession), and can result in heightened sense of satisfaction by the person doing the favor (which may positively influence future interactions with requester).

Limitations: only tested face to face interactions, interactants of the same sex, and prosocial requests only.

Miller, R.L., Brickman, P., & Bolen, D. (1975). Attribution versus persuasion as a means for modifying behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 430-441.

Persuasive efforts do little to change attitudes; investigated manipulating attributions as a means of persuasion.

Study 1 attempted to modify children’s littering behavior; expected attribution condition to persist longer in treatment effects than persuasion 2 weeks later.

3 5th grade classes (1 is control), 8 45 min. sessions

Attribution condition: told all week how orderly and clean they were using all 3 attribution techniques; Persuasion condition: told all week how important it is not to litter and that they should be orderly and clean.

Pretest- # of assignments students were told to throw away in trash versus # on floor

Posttest – gave out candy and counted # of wrappers in trash vs. floor; later in day left out candy wrappers, came back an hour later to see if picked up

2 week posttest – gave puzzles with wrappers, then same procedure as posttest

Results: Attribution significantly better litter behavior, no difference in persuasion and control; 3 mos. later, teacher reports attribution group is significant improved compared to prior to treatment.

Study 2 controls for differences between teachers on Math achievement test to see if effects generalize to more valued skills (highly valenced aspect of self), and to separate out motivation and ability attributions.

Compared attribution and reinforcement techniques (verbal praise, extrinsic reward); same procedure as study 1 except did not explain why it was important because thought that was obvious; and used public labeling.

6 conditions: Attribution Motivation, Attribution Ability, Persuasion Motivation, Persuasion Ability, Reinforcement, & Control (no message)

4 2nd grade classes – all conditions in each class

Math and math self-esteem pretest ( 8 days of treatment ( Math/self-esteem posttest ( same tests 2 weeks later

Results: no differences at pretest across groups; found effect of time on self-esteem, such that it improved from pretest to 2 weeks after treatment for everyone but control (decreased across time possibly due to awareness that they were not in a treatment group). Attribution treatments significantly changed math ability and change persisted over time. Persuasion was generally not significant and any small effects dissipated over time.

Limitation of all conditions in one class versus study 1 that had one teacher per condition; since effects were found in both studies, cannot ascribe them to idiosyncrasies of methods.

Findings lend support to communication of expectancies/teacher expectancy effect.

No significant difference between attribution ability and attribution motivation –both internal attributions found to be sufficient. Note: do not expect external attributions to be an effective technique.

Effects may be specific to children, adults may recognize intent.

Persuasion may cause person to believe that the need to be persuaded indicates that they may not have the characteristics to begin with (e.g., if they are being persuaded to be clean, perhaps it’s because they are not a clean person) and thus, they will make negative self-attributions as a consequence.

Finally, attributions themselves may be a form of reinforcement.

Week 4. Conformity, Cooperation, Conflict, and Social Dilemmas (Week of October 16)

Asch, S.E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments.

In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership, and men (pp. 393-401). Pittsburgh: Carnegie Press.

· Subjects put into situations where their own experiences and beliefs conflicted with group norms, in this case determining the length of a line as compared to a standard

· Found progression towards majority opinion as trials progressed

· 1/4 of subjects remained completely independent and did not conform; 1/3 displaced estimates towards group opinion in majority of trials

· Yeilding subjects experienced

· Distortion of perception under stress of group pressure

· Distortion of judgment, begin to believe their estimates are inaccurate

· Distortion of actions, need to not appear different or inferior to others

· Role of majority size: full force of conformity with majority of 3, increasing majority up to 15 does not increase conformity

Latane, B., & Darley, J. (1969). Bystander “apathy.” American Scientist, 57, 244-268.

Study: People may be less likely to intervene in an emergency in the presence of other than if they are alone. Four experiments: smoke in the room, woman falls off chair in other room, stolen beer, and epileptic seizure. Subjects are less likely to intervene when with a confederate that doesn’t intervene.

Explanation: presence of others makes the interpretation of the situation more ambiguous (social influence) and diffuses responsibility. The presence of even 1 other person caused a failure or delay to act (possible misinterpretation of the event).

Pluralistic ignorance - until someone acts, others see non-responding bystanders. Thus, situational factors more important than personality (“apathy”).

Difficulties of helping: 1) few positive benefits of intervening; 2) rare events – lack of experience; 3) variations – difficult to deal with; 4) unforeseen; 5) requires instant action; and 6) often ambiguous.

· Intervention requires a series of processes to understand nature of emergency as well as help needed.

· Processes of what to do in an emergency are easier when alone – know the help must come from you. There is a diffusion of responsibility when others are around. Social inhibition becomes very generalized. Often victims are strangers, which also decreases likelihood of intervention.

Darley, J.M., & Batson, C.D. (1973). “From Jerusalem to Jericho”: A study of situational and dispositional variables in helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27, 100-108.

· The “Good Samaritan” Experiment, testing influence of situational versus personality variables on helping behavior

· Seminarian students sent to give a sermon, some assigned to speak about the Good Samaritan parable, others assigned a non-helping parable. Some were told they were late for the tal